Month: October 2002

Not even an apology if people perceived it to be anti-gay, the usual formula for an embarrassed pol. Put this together with the gay groups’ insouciance, and you’ve just given Republicans carte blanche to gay-bait opponents at any opportunity. Still not a peep from the far-left National Gay Lesbian Task Force or from GLAAD, the gay thought-police. I just found a first edition of “Animal Farm.” Never felt more relevant.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: Worth passing along, I think:

Just a short note of thanks. Christopher Hitchens’ unswerving dedication to his conscience reinvigorated my own sense of purpose, long dormant through disillusionment. Thanks for honoring, if not the specifics of his stand, the courage he displayed in severing ties with The Nation. I served as a weapons specialist, of sorts, in the US Navy during Desert Storm/Shield. At the time, I truly believed in what we were doing; it seemed we could only be right. Then, as we returned to the States, and the post-deployment culture shock only further alienated us from our families and friends, we found, to our horror, that the war effort wasn’t so monolithically supported as we’d thought. We’d had no clue that, while we were fighting, and some of our friends were dying, others picketed and rallied against us. At least it seemed they were against us. It was our blood, wasn’t it? I first heard the phrase, “Blood for oil,” after I’d already served my time in the Gulf. And as attrition and time chipped away my certainty, I began to lose that spark of patriotism that had been my impetus for serving my country at all. The last three years of my six year enlistment were hell. I didn’t have anything to prop me up when things got hairy. America, and especially American politicians, just didn’t seem worth dying for. I didn’t want to bleed for oil anymore. I received my Honorable discharge in 1996. I’m sure my supervisors, not the same men who knew me during the Gulf War, breathed a deep sigh of relief and wrote me off as another one-hitch loser. Fine by me. I started a business. I raised a family. I stayed away from politics. Then came September, 11th 2001. Fanatical men shattered what small buffer of ignorant bliss I’d managed to maintain around myself and my family. Men no different than those we’d fought and beaten ten years earlier. And I once again felt I had to do something. I’m now in the hiring pools for both the Federal Air Marshal program and the Transportation Safety Administration’s Airport Security Screener. That’s my stand, and people like Hitchens remind me why I took it then, and why I do it now. Thanks.

GLENDA RESPONDS:

Dear Mr. Sullivan, I am delighted to accept the Sontag Award. I have disagreed with you since you were a boy wonder. In fact, I cancelled my subscription to The New Republic when you hijacked it, and I have watched your downwardly mobile career path with interest. Are you a U.S. citizen yet? Thank you for bringing a small part of my essay to a larger audience. Glenda Gilmore

Charming, isn’t she? Meanwhile, check out the website where her vacuous essay was first printed. Click on the link to the responses. They’re amazing. My favorite is as below:

Daily Dish Readers: Welcome to American Studies at Yale—check your brain at the door Posted at: 10/12/02 5:18:29 AM Posted by: HGS Dissident (as entered by poster)

What you have seen on display here in this article are the consequences of letting race-and-gender airheads infiltrate and then eventually take over a once a stellar department. Can you imagine what it is like for a graduate student like myself, who labored for seven years in a remote part of the world to learn a non-Indo-European language, to find himself under the thumb of parochial know-nothings like Glenda Gilmore? Yale History has unfortunately become the province of such America Studies apparatchiks and their partisan agendas. These so-called scholars are a profoundly petty, unworldly and intellectually average lot. Though they preen themselves with a fashionable thirdworldism, few if any have seriously ventured beyond the confines of comfy academic settings in America and Western Europe. They have risen to where they are by figuring out, way back during their undergraduate days, that honors and riches are available to those who can make themselves adept at uncovering yet more evidence confirming how our dastardly American society at one time in its past failed to live up to the standards of egaliltarian utopianism (that no society from time immemorial has ever lived up to these unrealizable ideals is not up for discussion…). This ongoing activity of unearthing fresh layers of American evil sets the boundaries of their intellectual universe. They are absolutely unable and unwilling to entertain the possibility that there have been or could be non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual perpetrators of violence and oppression.

When they are confronted with scholarship like my own, which concentrates on the imperial history of a non-Western power, their response is either knee-jerk moral equivalence which changes the topic to American crimes against underprivileged groups, or the contrivance of contorted causal chains which attempt to blame anything and everything that goes wrong in any part of the world on Washington or corporate America. They simply will not acknowledge that someone like Saddam or Bin Laden is possible. The only truly bad people on this planet are Christian Conservatives—and oil men. Gilmore’s article is the worst example I have seen yet of this moral and intellectual myopia at Yale.

The news is not all bad however. For the past several semesters I have worked as a teacher’s assistant and, what do you know, but the message is not taking. Most undergrads are savvy enough to have figured out that their profs are people who could not handle life in the real world—and they are simply waiting them out. It comes as a profound shock to these students when, after a few weeks in my section, they discover that I share their contempt for the naive, hyperbolic posturings of the faculty. The fact that Gilmore included in her piece a plea to Yalies to stand up to Bush shows how out of touch many professors are with the student body. Sorry, Glenda, but your students actually approve of the job the president is doing (wish I could say the same for your teaching….). They prefer his sober reckoning with geopolitical realities to your melodramatic verbage. The only way in which this situation resembles your vaunted sixties is that the young people are rebelling against authority—which at today’s Yale means rejecting the nihilistic rantings of tenured hyenas in favor of a level-headed appreciation of America’s security needs.

Get that person a blog!

A TASTE OF SADDAM: John Burns, a superb New York Times reporter, gets the run-around from Saddam:

But whatever Al Furat may be these days, the Iraqis certainly knew that the tour for at least 200 scrambling, sweating reporters would not settle the matter conclusively, and not just because none of the visitors were experts in nuclear physics. The tour left no time to visit all of the dozen or more buildings on the site, and no opportunity to descend into the underground bunkers that appeared to be accessible from steel-sided entranceways with rusting doorways that were dotted about. The result, mostly, was confusion and befuddlement – whether that was the intention of the tour’s organizers in the Ministry of Military Industrialization,
or an inevitability given the complexity of the issue and the chaotic circumstances. What was certain, however, was that tours like these for reporters are unlikely to add very much to the world’s knowledge of what Iraq’s secretive leadership has been up to.

And you think inspectors would fare much better?

DATA: Here are two stills from the ad for those of without internet connections. Judge for yourself. The reach for the guy’s crotch at the end of the ad is particularly subtle.

A useful primer on some of the people behind the “Not In Our Name” anti-war petition.

MORE DIRTY TRICKS: The Dems in South Dakota are vying with the Montanans in sleaze.

Insight magazine has some interesting follow-up on the gay-baiting ad in Montana. It was funded entirely by the national Democrats. The relevant part of an interview with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director Tovah Ravitz-Meehan is as follows:

Insight: The ad campaign was $100,000
TRM: I don’t know that. I can find out for you
Insight: I’d be interested in how much of it came from the DSCC.
TRM: I’m certain that all of it did.

The other detail from the Insight report is interesting: “Ken Miller, chairman of the Montana Republican Party, tells Insight that in fact internal party polls showed Taylor, within the margin of error, in a statistical tie with Baucus as recently as three weeks ago.” That makes more sense to me. Insight repeats the dumb and offensive idea that being called a homosexual is some sort of unforgivable slur. But what was infuriating about this kind of ad is that it doesn’t even do this. It plays on stereotypes and works by insinuation and pandering. In many ways, it’s the cowardice of the ad that makes it all the more reprehensible.

It’s unclear who the perpetrator was, but if he’s connected with Islamism, Europe could begin to experience the fruits of what Pim Fortuyn warned against. The French have just taken a hit too. Paris is already realigning quite solidly with the U.S. against Berlin, and this might accelerate the shift even further. Memo to Europe: wake up. It’s your war too.

ISN’T IT RICH, CTD: Many of Frank Rich’s points about the abdication of the Democrats on matters of war and economics are well taken. The Dems don’t offer any credible alternatives to the Bush administration’s policies right now. But does Rich? Has he proposed a real alternative? He wants no war with Iraq, but has no proposal for dealing with Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, except a blizzard of potshots at John Ashcroft. Sure, he can’t wait to raise taxes. But has he thought for a moment what a big tax hike would do to an economy already beleaguered by soft demand? Rich, like the Democrats, has presented nothing credible as a solution to our problems. He just whines and preens; and then criticizes those who whine and preen. He’s part of the problem, as is his newspaper.

ROMENESKO WATCH, CTD: A reader notices another weird lapse in Jim Romenesko’s coverage of the media:

I’m a regular reader of MediaNews and couldn’t agree more that it is blatantly biased. One story that I was looking for there and never saw was the incident when NRO Columnist Joel Mowbray was briefing detained in July and not allowed to leave the State Department. The incident itself was minor and short, but a federal government agency wouldn’t allow a reporter to leave? Think that would have been big news if he worked for The NY Times? The Washington Post? The Cleveland Free Times (MediaNews loves the liberal alt-weeklies)? It was an especially obvious omission when you look at some of the other stories that are highlighted.
By the way, one of my reasons for reading it is amazement at the self-absorbed and self-righteous attitudes of so many of the writers – especially on the Letters page!! If there is any one place I would recommend someone go to see in action the insulated world of liberal journalism and the egos involved, it’s the MediaNews letters page. Catty; nitpicking; conservative-bashing; anti-business; whining about being underpaid; flailing at anyone who gets off the reservation; jealous of each other’s success; it’s like Melrose place, only less friendly…
I like to read it and remind myself that these are the people who say conservatives are mean and have no sense of humor.

He’s right. Go visit and make up your own mind.

After the news cycle is over and the story has disappeared, the Human Rights Campaign, the biggest gay political group in the country, almost does the right thing. But why isn’t the condemnation of such tactics from executive director Elizabeth Birch’s lips? And why the deference to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s transparent spin? Notice also how HRC doesn’t come out and say that this was a homophobic ad. That might offend their Democratic allies. Here’s the quote:

“HRC deplores any attempt to make a political issue of a candidate’s real or perceived sexual orientation,” said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. “This type of ad has no place in politics, it is an affront to gay people and we hope we have seen the last of this campaign tactic.”

Notice the weasel word “any attempt,” leaving the possibility open that this ad was a genuine and non-homophobic one. Indeed, this press release artfully gets HRC off the hook, but never takes on the issue at hand: was this or was this not an anti-gay ad. And it provides a way for the DSCC to get its message out there. They’re smart over there. And cowardly.

“It is not enough for Bush to be President of the United States, he must become the Emperor of the World. This unclothed emperor is, as they say in Texas, all hat and no brains. In the years before us, I fear there will be causes worth dying for. There will be tyrants so unstoppable that we will have to fight them to preserve our own freedom. But that is not the case now. Instead of standing up against tyranny, we are bringing it to our own doorstep. We have met the enemy, and it is us.” – Glenda Gilmore, professor of history, Yale University.

UPDATE: From a Texas reader: “‘This unclothed emperor is, as they say in Texas, all hat and no brains.’ We don’t say that. We say: all hat and no cattle. She can’t even quote the average Texan right.”
From another Texas reader: “In Texas, we say, ‘All hat and no ranch.’ Never heard it put that other way. Ever.”

I can’t blog about Carter’s Nobel Prize. It’s too predictable, too depressing and too easy. All I can say is: some of the nastiest and most vicious dictators in the world must be very happy right now. Their best buddy is a hero.

I got an email this morning that channels what the big gay organizations really feel about the gay-baiting Montana Democratic ad:

I think you’re coming across pretty partisan on this one, Andrew. Baucus is a co-sponsor of ENDA and has a 57 percent pro-gay voting record which is quite impressive given that he’s from Montana. The only Republican west of the Mississippi to equal his score is Gordon Smith … from Oregon, of course. After him, there isn’t a remotely close second. If this ad helps put the last nail on the coffin (which was practically sealed shut to begin with) for Mike Taylor (who is another social conservative a la Grassley or Brownback) then it should be celebrated. This is why HRC/NGLTF, etc. isn’t saying anything. And it’s obvious to anyone that Republicans would practically foam at the mouth for such juicy footage if it existed. The ad was not a mischaracterization of Taylor (not all hairdressers are gay, if that’s what poor, poor Republicans want to infer, then that’s much more revealing, doncha think?), and Baucus is hardly on an anti-gay tirade. It’s politics as usual.

Notice that my position that gay-baiting is wrong, period, is described as “pretty partisan.” Notice how running a gay-baiting ad is okay if it helps elect people who support some aspects of the gay organizations’ agenda. Actually, it’s not just ok – it’s to be “celebrated.” Still no word from HRC or NGLTF. This confirms their status as front-operations for the Democrats, even when it means condoning anti-gay bigotry. But how can HRC still criticize Jeb Bush for his ugly comments lately when they don’t object if a Democrat does far worse? One group has actually taken a principled stand, the Stonewall Democrats. Their executive director, a decent man called Chad Johnson, said the following: “Any gay-baiting tactic is contrary to the fundamental principals [sic] of the Democratic Party. As gay Democrats, we are required to hold all levels of our party accountable regarding gay and lesbian equality.” Hey, Chad, I’m afraid you forgot which party you’re in. Meanwhile, for every sleazebag bigot who wants to smear an opponent, the sluice gates have just been opened – wide.

A solid win in the House and almost certainly an emphatic one in the Senate. More interestingly, the polls show that Americans get the president’s arguments about Iraq in a post-9/11 world. According to a Pew Center poll, reported by ABCNews,

86 percent of those surveyed believed Saddam had nuclear weapons or was close to acquiring them, and 66 percent believed he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Bush cites the attacks as demonstrating the need to act against Saddam, and has linked his campaign against Iraq to the “war on terrorism” he launched last fall, but he has not established a direct link between Sept. 11 and Iraq. Bush has also warned that Iraq could build a nuclear weapon within a year if it can get enriched uranium. “Clearly, the president’s major arguments in favor of taking military action against Iraq are resonating with the public,” the Pew center said in its report on the poll. Furthermore, 85 percent of those surveyed believed that the Saddam must be ousted – rather than simply disarmed – to deal with the threat posed by Iraq.

Meanwhile, a Fox News poll finds that 48 percent of Americans believe they would be less safe if Al Gore were president. I think that voters have listened carefully to both Bush and Gore these last two weeks. And they have drawn their own conclusions.

THAT AD: I’m unimpressed by some of your attempts to justify it. I refer to the political ad that prompted state senator Mike Taylor to withdraw from the Montana U.S. Senate race yesterday. Yes, there was some kind of legitimate argument about diversion of school loan money, but the issue was pathetically tiny. As the Billings Gazette noted,

Taylor denies wrongdoing and pointed to a 1999 settlement with the U.S. Education Department in which no violations were admitted and he paid a total of $27,250 to the federal government and the state of Colorado.

I’m also unimpressed by the notion that Taylor’s own apparent homophobia somehow detracts from the attempted smear. Yes, it’s offensive that Taylor thinks that being called gay is a “loathesome” accusation. But that doesn’t mean that the ad wasn’t a clear attempt to use homophobia to attack another candidate. I’ve watched the ad now a few times. The music is really central – it sounds like a ’70s porn video. The clips show Taylor with limp wrists fussing over a male model. The final shot is Taylor touching up the cosmetics under the guy’s eyes. Please. Acording to Taylor, plenty of such clips exist showing him fussing over a woman. So why did the Dems choose this one? The final sentence was also hardly subtle: “That’s not how we do business here in Montana.” I’m sorry, but this was gay-baiting. The real story, then, is how Democrats have responded and will respond. If they do nothing, if they do not condemn the ad, then the next time some know-nothing bigot tries a similar tactic on a Democrat, what are the Dems going to say? More depressing, but absolutely typical, is the non-response of the gay organizations. If this had been a Republican ad, can you imagine the outcry? So far, nothing on the website of the Human Rights Campaign or the National Gay Lesbian Task Force. HRC does have an item condemning Governor Jeb Bush for an ugly joke in Florida – but that merely confirms their double-standards. The locals aren’t much better. According to the AP:

Karl Olson, executive director of PRIDE, a Helena gay rights organization, said he believes the ad was an attempt to suggest Taylor is gay. He said he was bothered more by Taylor’s reaction. “To me, what’s more of a problem is that an adult, an intelligent person, is going to flee from that and not just stand up and say, `You know, OK, so I looked like a gay hairdresser. What’s wrong with looking like a gay hairdresser? Let’s get on with the campaign,'” he said.

This is a transparent attempt to blame the victim. I repeat: If this ad had been run by a Republican against a Democrat, then it would be front page news in the New York Times and the subject of denunciations from gay rights “leaders.” But because it’s a Democratic ad, it’s a non-story. That tells you a huge amount about groups like HRC and the Democratic Party.

HELLISH TECH DAY: No sooner do I get my Powerbook working again, than the DSL line goes down. Grrr. I lost several hours today just trying to do the basics. This technology is wonderful if it works, isn’t it?

SIGN OF THE TIMES: Riding through Commercial Street tonight, I saw something new. Around the entrances to various bars, there were mounds of strewn cigarette butts. They banned smoking in bars here a week or so ago. I wonder if these piles of debris, all gathered in one place around exits and entrances to buildings will one day be deemed the hallmark of this particular time. And what people in the future will think of that.

DEPT OF AMPLIFICATIONS: My reader who commented on the Weekly Standard screw-up on the Buzzcocks got it slightly wrong. The story wasn’t made up; it was heard third hand and the name of the group was wrong. Everything else pans out, as this gracious correction shows. (Hey, Krugman, take a leaf from this guy’s book!)

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “As Flanders & Swann said: “Examine the Irishman, Welshman, or Scot / You’ll find he’s a stinker as likely as not…” Certainly no responsible person should give a moment’s thought to these Celtic fringes, vegetating in their aboriginal squalor.” – John Derbyshire, National Review Online.